Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Supreme Court Justice Scalia, who has argued that the government has broad rights to censor television, feels that if people don't like superPAC ads they should just "turn the TV off"   (cbsnews.com) divider line 152
    More: Asinine, Scalia, supreme court justices, supreme courts, Stephen Breyer, American System, constitutional convention, CBS This Morning, Etta James  
•       •       •

2037 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jan 2012 at 10:30 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-21 05:28:17 PM  
That makes perfect sense. If you don't like raisins you pick them out of your oatmeal, you don't expect the government to do it for you.
 
2012-01-21 05:36:50 PM  
Gee, it's almost as if hundreds of years of case law treat political speech differently than pictures of boobs and dirty words...
 
2012-01-21 08:23:06 PM  
5 years from now: Scalia rules in favor of making it legal to sell TVs that can't be turned off, because letting you not watch the commercials violates a company's right to free speech.
 
2012-01-21 08:54:30 PM  
CBS news links on mobile never work. They are suppressing their own free speech!!!
 
2012-01-21 09:01:46 PM  

GAT_00: 5 years from now: Scalia rules in favor of making it legal to sell TVs that can't be turned off, because letting you not watch the commercials violates a company's right to free speech.


DVRs are guilty of violating the basic human rights of corporations
 
2012-01-21 09:08:15 PM  
He makes an excellent case...

...for the mandatory retirement for supreme court justices
 
2012-01-21 09:18:54 PM  
"I don't care who is doing the speech - the more the merrier," Scalia said. "People are not stupid. If they don't like it, they'll shut it off."



so basically if you've got money, you've got speech. if you don't got money, STFU and move on slacker, we don't like yer kind 'round here.

And this is the message conservatives want to go with?
 
2012-01-21 09:23:00 PM  
Farking hypocrite.
 
2012-01-21 09:30:59 PM  

eddyatwork: Farking hypocrite.


I don't think he's at all hypocritical. Scalia has been trending elitist/corporate for a while now and he's been fairly open about his contempt for democracy. his 'f*ck off' attitude towards the first amendment is entirely consistent with his rulings.
 
2012-01-21 09:31:23 PM  
"People are not stupid."

WTF? Of course they are. A significant minority anyway. This silly pandering ought to be restricted to elected politicians.
 
2012-01-21 09:43:04 PM  
This just in: Scalia is a farking asshole. Thomas is his hemorrhoid.
 
2012-01-21 10:35:15 PM  
Supreme Courts are people too, my friend.
 
2012-01-21 10:35:59 PM  
You know, given the way he normally defends his views and decisions, those responses are so weak I'm almost inclined to think that he regrets how it turned out.
 
2012-01-21 10:37:14 PM  
I will most likely outlive Fat Tony Scalia. That makes me happy.
 
2012-01-21 10:39:05 PM  
that headline made my head hurt.
 
2012-01-21 10:41:13 PM  
Subby, he did NOT do something so crass as to say "F* off". The man is a honest, upstanding citizen who would do no such thing.

www.liberalstreetfighter.com
 
2012-01-21 10:41:54 PM  
Seriously, could this guy be more of a farking asshole?
 
2012-01-21 10:49:24 PM  

JK47: You know, given the way he normally defends his views and decisions, those responses are so weak I'm almost inclined to think that he regrets how it turned out.


I think he just feels it's beneath him to explain his views to the peons. Granted - he IS a judge on the highest court in the land so I suppose a certain level of pride is only to be expected...but Scalia always sounds arrogant to me. At times he almost borders on nearly toxic levels of contempt.
 
2012-01-21 10:49:24 PM  
I wonder how many years it has been since he himself has used a TV?
No one would make that comment if they still used one.
 
2012-01-21 10:51:33 PM  
Scalia said the blame for this type of system shouldn't fall on the Supreme Court, which he said decides merely whether the system is legal under the U.S. Constitution. Instead, he said the ones who have to change things are the politicians who created the system and the voters who often reward the candidates who spend the most money.

Nice job asshole. Bush league jurisprudence.
 
2012-01-21 10:53:33 PM  
I'm with Scalia.

Free speech for the win!
 
2012-01-21 11:02:00 PM  
Exactly where did Scalia argue that the government has the "broad right" to censor television? The only recent censorship decision I can remember from him was the Cher case, in which it was remanded to the circuit court for a first amendment determination. Even if Scalia had endorsed some sort of obscenity or other limited exception over public airwaves, that's hardly some QED for why he should also support the government's purported criminalization of political speech.
 
2012-01-21 11:02:20 PM  
Scalia said the blame for this type of system shouldn't fall on the Supreme Court, which he said decides merely whether the system is legal under the U.S. Constitution. Instead, he said the ones who have to change things are the politicians who created the system and the voters who often reward the candidates who spend the most money.

Sure, I can agree with this. Granted, the Supreme Court has to make the proper decision under the United States Constitution. You said organizations had First Amendment protection as far as using money for politicking, basically.
 
2012-01-21 11:02:50 PM  

Dead for Tax Reasons: GAT_00: 5 years from now: Scalia rules in favor of making it legal to sell TVs that can't be turned off, because letting you not watch the commercials violates a company's right to free speech.

DVRs are guilty of violating the basic human rights of corporations


As do the legs I use to get up and make myself a sammich during commercials. Bipedal motion, it's no longer just a threat to American weight supremacy.
 
2012-01-21 11:04:57 PM  
CitizensUnited:

It's a privilege to watch your mind work.
 
2012-01-21 11:07:09 PM  

Weaver95: "I don't care who is doing the speech - the more the merrier," Scalia said. "People are not stupid. If they don't like it, they'll shut it off."



so basically if you've got money, you've got speech. if you don't got money, STFU and move on slacker, we don't like yer kind 'round here.

And this is the message conservatives want to go with?


Something like 80% of Americans say Citizens United was wrongly decided.
 
2012-01-21 11:08:15 PM  
Wait, so if i don't like what's on the tube I can turn it off?

I'll be damned.
 
2012-01-21 11:08:19 PM  
I would rather watch a zombie John Wayne Gacy corn holing little children than see another political ad from any party.

Not that I want to watch either, just there to give you scale.
 
2012-01-21 11:10:31 PM  

Forced Perspective: Exactly where did Scalia argue that the government has the "broad right" to censor television? The only recent censorship decision I can remember from him was the Cher case, in which it was remanded to the circuit court for a first amendment determination. Even if Scalia had endorsed some sort of obscenity or other limited exception over public airwaves, that's hardly some QED for why he should also support the government's purported criminalization of political speech.


I see the headline as connecting the "change the channel" argument from one issue to the another issue. There's other ways to argue both of these issues, the headline is just about consistent with arguments across issues. You can be pro-Citizens United and pro-TV censorship, but you'd better come up with a different way of arguing.
 
2012-01-21 11:11:50 PM  

Weaver95: "I don't care who is doing the speech - the more the merrier," Scalia said. "People are not stupid. If they don't like it, they'll shut it off."


So, why doesn't that argument work for "mature content", such as profanity, nudity, sex, and so on? I mean, if the recommendation of the Supreme Court is to "shut it off" when objectionable political advertising comes on, shouldn't that recommendation work for other objectionable content, too?
 
2012-01-21 11:12:53 PM  
Oh c'mon. Without superPACs, where would we get to see candidate's heads photoshopped onto pole-dancers' bodies while black guys duck-walk across the screen holding AK-47s?

SuperPACs are necessary to maintain America's political discourse.

/in the toilet
//looks like a bucket of PayDay bars in there
 
2012-01-21 11:13:20 PM  

12349876: I see the headline as connecting the "change the channel" argument from one issue to the another issue. There's other ways to argue both of these issues, the headline is just about consistent with arguments across issues. You can be pro-Citizens United and pro-TV censorship, but you'd better come up with a different way of arguing.


I got that, but when and where did Scalia argue in favor of government-TV censorship? I'm not an expert in first amendment issues, but my understanding is that he's pretty much an absolutist and has consistently struck down attempts to criminalize speech, whether it be political speech in Citizens United or otherwise.
 
2012-01-21 11:13:55 PM  

GAT_00: 5 years from now: Scalia rules in favor of making it legal to sell TVs that can't be turned off, because letting you not watch the commercials violates a company's right to free speech will likely be dead.


FTFY
 
2012-01-21 11:22:13 PM  

Nabb1: Gee, it's almost as if hundreds of years of case law treat political speech differently than pictures of boobs and dirty words...


This. I don't agree with the Citizen's United decision. However, whether you're a strict constructionist or not, it's easy to see why the judicial favors more freedom for political speech than porn.
 
2012-01-21 11:25:29 PM  
and this is a problem why exactly??
 
2012-01-21 11:32:33 PM  
He'd might as well have said "You don't like my decisions? Move to Canada."
 
2012-01-21 11:34:45 PM  
Supreme Court Justice Scalia, *click*
 
2012-01-21 11:34:47 PM  

Free_Chilly_Willy: and this is a problem why exactly??


This is all I could come up with.

melme.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-01-21 11:36:38 PM  
The SuperPacs are currently tearing the GOP to shreds, and they will contribute handily to the GOP defeat in November. The butthurt over this crap is going to be tremendous. Then all the fark fascists gobbling corporate dick right now will be completely flumoxed as to why they are so politically irrelevant.
 
2012-01-21 11:39:26 PM  

Fista-Phobia: Free_Chilly_Willy: and this is a problem why exactly??

This is all I could come up with.

[melme.files.wordpress.com image 333x400]


Can someone wear that to the Supreme Court?
 
2012-01-21 11:42:36 PM  
When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, Scalia has no equal.

When it comes to everything else, Scalia has the brains of a bucket of sand.

This pronouncement falls into the latter category.
 
2012-01-21 11:46:01 PM  

Gyrfalcon: When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, Scalia has no equal.

When it comes to everything else, Scalia has the brains of a bucket of sand.

This pronouncement falls into the latter category.


"Corporations are People", "Money is Speech" are hardly wonderful interpretation.
 
2012-01-21 11:49:51 PM  

nobodyUwannaknow: Gyrfalcon: When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, Scalia has no equal.

When it comes to everything else, Scalia has the brains of a bucket of sand.

This pronouncement falls into the latter category.

"Corporations are People", "Money is Speech" are hardly wonderful interpretation.


Well, those aren't in the constitution, are they?
 
2012-01-21 11:51:05 PM  

iaazathot: The SuperPacs are currently tearing the GOP to shreds, and they will contribute handily to the GOP defeat in November. The butthurt over this crap is going to be tremendous. Then all the fark fascists gobbling corporate dick right now will be completely flumoxed as to why they are so politically irrelevant.


money in politics didn't just turn into a big problem when citizens united came down.
it's been a huge problem since at least the transcontinental railroad, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't a massive problem prior to that but I won't guarantee it just because I don't specifically of massive graft prior to that point.

and if I were you I wouldn't get so cocky. the corporate fatcats have their parasitic tentacles in just as deep to the democratic party and are directing their every movement as well.
(see, healthcare reform: huge health industry payday [including health insurance companies] - no discount, bill paid for by taxpayers. see SOPA.)
think about the big picture, we need a constitutional amendment, because even if you win we all still lose.
 
2012-01-21 11:56:59 PM  
If you're going to have a complete farkwaffle as a supreme court justice, he is exactly the kind you want. Consistent, and willing to rule against things he personally likes because his legal theory forces him to.

As a human being, he can eat a bowl of dicks. As a Justice? He's 4th or 5th on the DIAF list. Which is pretty respectable.
 
2012-01-22 12:03:56 AM  

relcec: (see, healthcare reform: huge health industry payday [including health insurance companies] - no discount, bill paid for by taxpayers. see SOPA.)


www.partyvibe.com
 
2012-01-22 12:04:02 AM  
He's fat, smokes and looks excitable--he hasn't many years left.
 
2012-01-22 12:05:18 AM  

beer4breakfast: Nabb1: Gee, it's almost as if hundreds of years of case law treat political speech differently than pictures of boobs and dirty words...

This. I don't agree with the Citizen's United decision. However, whether you're a strict constructionist or not, it's easy to see why the judicial favors more freedom for political speech than porn.


No. Courts have no business make content-based value judgments regarding the relative merits of one person's expression or another's.
 
2012-01-22 12:06:30 AM  

Gyrfalcon: When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, Scalia has no equal.

When it comes to everything else, Scalia has the brains of a bucket of sand.

This pronouncement falls into the latter category.


So I'm guessing you are going with the judicial activist label for justices whose decisions you don't like, but applaud his participation in an opinion choosing a president of the united states when it was constitutionally required to be decided in congress.

And this passes for a great upholder of the constitution in your book?

He is a writhing steaming pile of pig shiat who thinks he should be crowned king of the universe
 
2012-01-22 12:07:54 AM  
Justice Scalia is a Fark-quality troll.

That is not intended as a complement.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report